Trustees and Council give green light for mooring rules

[George94]

yes this is a concern I rarely stop anywhere longer than 1 week but like this year I stayed in Wakefield for 14 days as I had to do 2 trips to London and it was an easy place to catch a train from. During the winter it can be difficult to comply without staying in certain places for 14 days as cruising distances are limited. And having been caught the year before last iced in without any water and coal as I had opted to stay in the middle of nowhere, I now have a policy during the winter to use 7/14 day viisitor moorings where possible close to water and elsan point.

 

I don't think they are going to insist that you move while iced in.

 

Indeed, it would be sensible for them to concentrate their efforts on the period from April to October.

 

i have to disagree it takes at least 12 months to tell what distance someone covers. Last year when I went to London I moored in Berkhamstead on the way down and on the way back with 2 months between but it was mentioned to me on my second visit that I should move further than just the Berko area. I started the year in Cropredy went to London and finished the year in Wigan yet I was still mistaken as an over stayer!!!

 

So, did they lock you up, impound your boat, charge you £1,000?

 

I presume not.

 

As you say, you were mistaken for an over-stayer. I presume they acknowledged the mistake when you pointed it out.

[alan_fincher]

This is simple paranoia.

 

Neither logic, nor experience, nor what has been said by C&RT, suggests that "genuine" CCers are in the firing line. C&RT are, it seems, going to check compliance by tracking boat movements. Provided you comply with the guidelines published by BW (now C&RT) you have nothing to fear.

But if they reduce the amount of time you are allowed to stay at key locations, then compliance becomes far harder, doesn't it ?

 

I'm sure John will not be "targeted" if he spends 14 days on a 14 day mooring - but if they change it to 48 hours, and he then just spent three days where previously he could stay 14, then he is no longer "compliant" is he ?

 

So unless people are happy to keep being told they can no longer do what was considered fine in the past, it is more than paranoia, isn't it ? It is a genuine concern, and implies having to change what you do, if you don't wish to suddenly be classed a rue-breaker.

[George94]

Yes - the major worry for those alrady thinking they are "compliant" is that there will simply be less places like this, if CRT push ahead with altering the maximum stay at many of the popular sites.

 

I agree that is a worry. It must be tempting for C&RT to endeavour to augment their income by charging more for stays of more than a day or two.

 

This is why we need more boaters on the C&RT board!

[cotswoldsman]

I don't think they are going to insist that you move while iced in.

 

Indeed, it would be sensible for them to concentrate their efforts on the period from April to October.

 

 

 

So, did they lock you up, impound your boat, charge you £1,000?

 

I presume not.

 

As you say, you were mistaken for an over-stayer. I presume they acknowledged the mistake when you pointed it out.

 

I think you have missed the point in both cases.

[George94]

But if they reduce the amount of time you are allowed to stay at key locations, then compliance becomes far harder, doesn't it ?

 

I'm sure John will not be "targeted" if he spends 14 days on a 14 day mooring - but if they change it to 48 hours, and he then just spent three days where previously he could stay 14, then he is no longer "compliant" is he ?

 

So unless people are happy to keep being told they can no longer do what was considered fine in the past, it is more than paranoia, isn't it ? It is a genuine concern, and implies having to change what you do, if you don't wish to suddenly be classed a rue-breaker.

 

As you pointed out yourself, that is not a CCing issue. It will affect everybody.

 

I think you have missed the point in both cases.

 

I note you haven't explained how.

[Lesd]

But if they reduce the amount of time you are allowed to stay at key locations, then compliance becomes far harder, doesn't it ?

 

I'm sure John will not be "targeted" if he spends 14 days on a 14 day mooring - but if they change it to 48 hours, and he then just spent three days where previously he could stay 14, then he is no longer "compliant" is he ?

 

So unless people are happy to keep being told they can no longer do what was considered fine in the past, it is more than paranoia, isn't it ? It is a genuine concern, and implies having to change what you do, if you don't wish to suddenly be classed a rue-breaker.

 

This post sums it up, it will make it harder to stay complient and it does affect us all not just ccers. Take cowroast as an example, 200 yards below the lock and the whole way upto the newground bridge above (300 yard more?) on less than 14 days, how many hire boats do they think want to tie up for a pint at that pub ? Its a sledge hammer to crack a nut. Half that ground will be empty if its enforced, even in summer.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

 

I note you haven't explained how.

 

This is a bit tire sum but in the case of the winter mooring what I said was that I now use 7/14 day moorings in case i get iced in again, I did not say I wait until I am iced in.

In the second case concerning Berko I was making the point that there was an assumption that I was not cruising, and unfortunately a lot of the stuff thrown at CMers is based on assumption

[Tuscan]

They have enough on their plate trying to deal with the obvious boaters that have a history of little or no movement. This will take a long time to resolve I do not believe any genuine CC'er has anything to fear as the intent to travel is pretty obvious.

[Lesd]

I do not believe any genuine CC'er has anything to fear as the intent to travel is pretty obvious.

 

Take a look at Alan's post 52.

[Tuscan]

Take a look at Alan's post 52.

 

 

Post 47 makes more sense to me

[Lesd]

Post 47 makes more sense to me

 

So you think its paranoid to object to Cart changing 400 yards of 14 day mooring at Cowroast to 7 day or less(7 day, 48 hr and 24hr) for no apparent reason ? The law says we can stay on the tow path for upto 14 days and from the times Ive been through Cowroast there's no major problem with getting a mooring there. Having these reductions will make it harder to stay compliant, that's not paranoid its fact.

[Tuscan]

So you think its paranoid to object to Cart changing 400 yards of 14 day mooring at Cowroast to 7 day or less(7 day, 48 hr and 24hr) for no apparent reason ? The law says we can stay on the tow path for upto 14 days and from the times Ive been through Cowroast there's no major problem with getting a mooring there. Having these reductions will make it harder to stay compliant, that's not paranoid its fact.

 

 

 

I can't comment on the current situation at Cowroast , guess I would moor 401 yards away as there is plenty of room all around there if I wanted to stay more than 7 days. if we are saying that CRT are changing 14 day moorings purely on a whim rather than because of demand or a history of overstaying then I would agree this could lead to problems. Perhaps Alan could raise this at the next meeting so that we are clear on the reasons behind the changes.

[blodger]

So you think its paranoid to object to Cart changing 400 yards of 14 day mooring at Cowroast to 7 day or less(7 day, 48 hr and 24hr) for no apparent reason ? The law says we can stay on the tow path for upto 14 days and from the times Ive been through Cowroast there's no major problem with getting a mooring there. Having these reductions will make it harder to stay compliant, that's not paranoid its fact.

Reducing 14 day and seven day moorings to less makes it very difficult for long weekend comtinuous cruisers needing to leave their boats for the intervening days.

[Lesd]

I can't comment on the current situation at Cowroast , guess I would moor 401 yards away as there is plenty of room all around there if I wanted to stay more than 7 days. if we are saying that CRT are changing 14 day moorings purely on a whim rather than because of demand or a history of overstaying then I would agree this could lead to problems. Perhaps Alan could raise this at the next meeting so that we are clear on the reasons behind the changes.

 

I just don't see that we should all just suck it up without question. I'm sure Cart arent doing this on a whim, far from it, I'd guess they are trying to keep a large local hire company sweet and also trying to raise some extra cash by fining/charging people who want to stay for more than 24/48 hours, fining people for something they were allowed to do the day before.

 

There are overstayers of all kinds all over the place, but I dont see that reducing the 14 day stays to 24 hrs etc can be the answer, enforcing the current rules would eradicate the problem.

 

I also don't understand the point that its cheaper to enforce the short stay moorings. You still need a white cap there every day to check new arrivals so what's the difference apart from the fact you can start fining people 12 days earlier !!

 

I do agree it will be interesting to see if Cart respond to Allan's email.

[David Mack]

Reducing the durations of moorings may not have much impact on genuine CCers, but those of us (with a permanent mooring) who try and fit our boating around a full time job are going to find it more difficult. If you don't want to limit your boating to local day/weekend trips out plus the odd one-two week trip, then you have to weekend your boat around the system. And that means using 7 day and 14 day moorings.

 

Perhaps they want to force us to pay for expensive short term moorings in all those underoccupied marinas!

[LoneWolf]

John my very strong feeling is that they are going after "non movers" or "very little movers". The kind of numbers being banded around as to just how small a distance you may need to move in a year to keep them of your back seem to be very small - low double figures of miles at most - never three figures, even.

 

If that's the case, I simply can't imagine anybody like yourself being targeted at all, or at least not in that respect.

 

The one concern I think is probably most pertinent to people who do try hard to comply, is that if they increasingly turn 14-day moorings into ones with much shorter limits, (and an overstay charge), it may mean making what in the past would have been a legitimate stay in a popular place an impossibility. I know some on-the-ball CC-ers who almost certainly "comply" currently are seeing this as the thin end of an unfortunate wedge. I think it is the biggest area of concern, but isn't specifically a CC-er issue. As a non CC-er I have little desire to see umpteen places screwed down to maximum stays of only one or two days. It may be unusual for me to stop longer than that anywhere right now, but I'll want to in future - I don't think you need to be classed a cc-er to be worried about this trend.

 

Good post Alan, I'm pretty much in agreement with all your posts here. Thanks for the updates - I'll look forward to any answers you get.

 

Your last para sums up my first thoughts when reading this thread. Especially given the Shropshire Union Canal Soc's apparent desire to colonise all the shelf-free sections of the Shroppie with 48Hr limits. Even the bits in the middle of nowhere like Coole Pilates & Sykes Hollow & Hack Green have all been extended (again) this year.

[Lady Muck]

Its all gone a bit Thames if you ask me.

[George94]

So you think its paranoid to object to Cart changing 400 yards of 14 day mooring at Cowroast to 7 day or less(7 day, 48 hr and 24hr) for no apparent reason ? The law says we can stay on the tow path for upto 14 days and from the times Ive been through Cowroast there's no major problem with getting a mooring there. Having these reductions will make it harder to stay compliant, that's not paranoid its fact.

 

Please go back and read what was posted. I used the word paranoid in response to CWM's assertion in post 45 that "I am going to have to suffer because of all this hysteria".

 

He gave as justification "Last year when I went to London I moored in Berkhamstead on the way down and on the way back with 2 months between but it was mentioned to me on my second visit that I should move further than just the Berko area. I started the year in Cropredy went to London and finished the year in Wigan yet I was still mistaken as an over stayer!!!"

 

The matter of stays being reduced was raised by AF in post 46, and then, somewhat disingenuously, CWM added that in as an argument. But it wasn't what he was talking about before AF mentioned it.

 

I quite agree that the spectre of large numbers of 14 day moorings being reduced to 2 or 3 is worrying, but it is not a specifically CCing issue.

[jenlyn]

At some point, people are going to realise that what CRT are proposing is not good for boating in general. I see no reason whatsoever for the need to fiddle with time limits on some visitor moorings. This is solely a stealth means of collecting more revenue. As usual, we are being fed snippets and not the bigger picture. A dozen of us (ccer's) had a meeting today, as a result, we have decided to pester the trustees with regard to having no confidence in the so called elected council and therefore they should be deselected. Some of us have agreed to protest at future IWA functions, this to include next years IWA festival at Cassiobury Park. The IWA does not, represent the boating community!

After exchanging several emails with Ivor Caplan, i feel the elected council as it stands is worthless, possibly put in place merely for CRT to make a statement that boaters are involved in their make up. Boaters and boats are very low down on CRT's priority list, their only interest in us, is as a money cow. That is becoming increasingly evident. The longer we sit back and let them dictate their terms and conditions, the worst its going to get.

[BlueStringPudding]

Greenied

[carlt]

Greenied

And from me (though I may have to go and have a shower now )

[cotswoldsman]

At some point, people are going to realise that what CRT are proposing is not good for boating in general. I see no reason whatsoever for the need to fiddle with time limits on some visitor moorings. This is solely a stealth means of collecting more revenue. As usual, we are being fed snippets and not the bigger picture. A dozen of us (ccer's) had a meeting today, as a result, we have decided to pester the trustees with regard to having no confidence in the so called elected council and therefore they should be deselected. Some of us have agreed to protest at future IWA functions, this to include next years IWA festival at Cassiobury Park. The IWA does not, represent the boating community!

After exchanging several emails with Ivor Caplan, i feel the elected council as it stands is worthless, possibly put in place merely for CRT to make a statement that boaters are involved in their make up. Boaters and boats are very low down on CRT's priority list, their only interest in us, is as a money cow. That is becoming increasingly evident. The longer we sit back and let them dictate their terms and conditions, the worst its going to get.

 

Where do I join?

[Pickles2]

In this thread, I'm beginning to see that some boaters are starting to realise that discrimination against one group of boaters (Cmers, liveaboards, CCers call 'em what you will) will ultimately affect all boaters and their boating behaviour.

 

In their efforts to drive liveaboards from the waterways (for that is what I believe they are trying to do) they (CaRT/IWA) will alienate many if not most boaters, even those previously supportive of their enforcement policies.

 

Their (CaRT's) policy will only change when the membership of the IWA start to write to their organisation and point out the error of their ways and 'our' trustees will finally lobby on all 'our' behalf.

 

The more people CaRT's mooring policies affect, the better.

 

IMHO, the more radical the enforcement policy becomes, the better. Short term loss for long term gain. Hell, we may even start fighting as a whole.

[Tuscan]

I'm prepared to give CRT a chance and also for them to explain there plans and rationale for any changes. I'm not that interested in joining lots of self interested splinter groups.

[Leni]

Where do I join?

 

And me!